Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britains transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. Thats why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. Its bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects peoples quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending Ã,£2.5 billion this year on buses and over Ã,£4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And were committed to sustaining this investment, with over Ã,£140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. Were also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra Ã,£22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which Ã,£10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as Ã,£30m, youll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyones interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesnt hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many peoples biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It wont. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we dont have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
I got one aswell, and I didnt even read past the first paragraph.
thats so much BS i think im gonna be sick
What he says is fair, really.
Basically:
1) Dont panic, we havent done anything yet, itd be a good 10 years before we could push any of this through anyway.
2) Congestion is bad, mmkay? If we dont do something, it will just get worse. So were trying to work out what would be the best solution. Of course this includes public transport improvements.
3) Its likely we wouldnt drop this scheme on you, on top of current taxing schemes (suggesting moving away from car tax discs onto road tax, I guess)
4) We dont want to rush into a system that restricts privacy or that is unfair, so lets keep talking about this.
...the only thing that gets my goat is that he keeps starting sentences with "And".
pah he would have binned the idea by now if he was worried about privacy, tracking peoples cars is just wrong
Personally I wouldnt be bothered if a little blippy thing registered a time-signature on a computer somewhere when I went in or out of a congestion-zone or toll-road.
The idea isnt to track exactly where the car is, only that it is in an area between two times that is considered bad for congestion.
Ideally (pure conjecture here) the area itself wouldnt be specified, but it would be classified and charged as "Toll Road, congestion-level B" or something, rather than "M6 Toll Northbound, 0830-0845".
Under the scheme I would probably be rinsed, as currently I commute from Bristol to Swindon (two areas nice and stuffed-up during rush hour), along a popular section of the M4. But Im not happy with my commute anyway and would much rather be riding my pushbike to and from work locally.
well considering there was talk of a Ã,£x.xx per mile scheme then they cant not track them, and even if it was like you suggest they would still have a rough idea of where you are
big brother is bad enough without watching you car as well
Quote from: SaraPersonally I wouldnt be bothered if a little blippy thing registered a time-signature on a computer somewhere when I went in or out of a congestion-zone or toll-road.
The idea isnt to track exactly where the car is, only that it is in an area between two times that is considered bad for congestion.
Ideally (pure conjecture here) the area itself wouldnt be specified, but it would be classified and charged as "Toll Road, congestion-level B" or something, rather than "M6 Toll Northbound, 0830-0845".
Under the scheme I would probably be rinsed, as currently I commute from Bristol to Swindon (two areas nice and stuffed-up during rush hour), along a popular section of the M4. But Im not happy with my commute anyway and would much rather be riding my pushbike to and from work locally.
Problem: The loggers then start tracking time, doing say 110mph from one tracker to the next hello nice hefty fine. If they bring this in I think the roads should not have speed cameras its allready extorsion!
Welcome to InstaBAN (tm) vehicle tracking system... oh dear.. ill leave the country if they force this on people, or just rip it out of the car and tell them to FO
seen 5th element? the taxi scene... it might not be too far wrong
Well its not hard to calculate miles from one junction of a motorway/dual carriageway to another, logger at both ends, sorted. Inside a congestion zone like London or Birmingham, that might be more complicated, or maybe theyll stick with a flat fee as London does currently.
Yes, maybe thered be an averaging speed thing going on there too but eh - as much as I do speed at times - its illegal anyway so you cant really complain (thats another kettle of fish, lets not go into that one).
Sorry, posting twice -
The point is that nothings happened yet. Theyre still just condsidering ideas. Its all just conjecture.
the fact that they are insisting on pressing on with the trials without considering alternatives and not listening to the public would suggest theyll just go ahead with it.
Its still an invasion of privacy.
Ã,£30M for 1 mile of road?
Ill do it for Ã,£3M and still make a tidy profit Mr. Blair.
Widen the roads, and not when they are at breaking point and not 1 lane at a time.
I hate when I see road widening that:
a) causes at least 1 lane of the current road to be closed between 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm due to the stupidity of those planning the works.
b) takes 4 years to complete a <10 mile stretch
c) has workers not really doing anything, scratching themselves and reading the paper
d) only widens 1 lane at a time, why not do 2-3 lanes whilst your there rather than having to start again on another lane by the time youve finished the current lane in 4 years?!
Widen the bloody roads, increase the speed limit on motorways and dual carriage ways, get rid of roundabouts. <-- congestion sorted.
employ clarkson to do it.
he would have it done in a week.
Quote from: redemploy clarkson to do it.
he would have it done in a week.
Damned right! Tho he would have 100,000 council workers at his house threatening to kill him. The road works in Durham at the moment near my house are stupid they have traffic lights up for doing work on a bloody path! They are only relaying new bricks on the path and tarmacking the thing.
They need to say FO to Health & Safety and get on with it!
Its a Scam.
Instead of saying what to do & start charging us now, Why not do it & see if gets worse before charging?
Public Transport WILL NOT be improve before any road pricing. Look at the new congestion zone.. conveniently put in place to start during school 1/2 term... Thats going to be 20% less cars straight away. Look at the traffic lights in london. Slowed down & altered on purpose to cause congestion. Duty on Fuel & road tax is supposed to be used to fund our road infrustructure & not used on other places/projects. Should just tarmac the whole country TBH.
Besides, the easy way around it is to go abroad & buy a Car registered in that country. Foreign drivers pay nothing to drive their cars over here & that wont change.
The best Solution would be :-
1. Raise the Minimum Age for Drivers to 21
2. Ban Trucks from Congested Zones from 7-10am & 4-7pm
3. Get Tough of Non MOT/Licenced/Uninsured Vehicles
4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
Quote1. Raise the Minimum Age for Drivers to 21
What about people under 21 who need a car for work/buisness?
Quote2. Ban Trucks from Congested Zones from 7-10am & 4-7pm
What about builders trucks who need to get new building materials to places or delivery trucks who need to get to buisness to deliver items.
Quote3. Get Tough of Non MOT/Licenced/Uninsured Vehicles
I agree with that but I dont think its relative to the congestion problem.
Quote4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
So what about poorer families who cant afford a new car?
only 3 has any merit the rest are crap tbh
Car sharing would be good idea if you have several employees who commute from the same area who work at similar times.
Quote from: Eggtastico4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
My car is 17 years old and more than safe/fast enough for motorway travel. Strict enforcement of a minimum speed limit is what is required here, not a blanket ban on old cars.
its emissions which should be clamped down on.
instead of 3rd party boy racer mods, there should be 3rd party emissions enhancer parts which you can buy, to get you through your emissions test.
the eu in the next few years is going to impose a 140 gm/km limit on all new cars.
your average mondeo does 247 btw.
I would look at that figure again, perhaps the V6 engines maybe but the 1.8i and the deisels produce less than 185g/km, I think the deisels produce somewhere around 150g/km
Clamping down on emissions is all well and good but still isnt going to help the congestion problem.
maybe closeing our borders and kicking the illegals out might help
Quote from: Chuck NorrisQuote1. Raise the Minimum Age for Drivers to 21
What about people under 21 who need a car for work/buisness?
Quote2. Ban Trucks from Congested Zones from 7-10am & 4-7pm
What about builders trucks who need to get new building materials to places or delivery trucks who need to get to buisness to deliver items.
Quote3. Get Tough of Non MOT/Licenced/Uninsured Vehicles
I agree with that but I dont think its relative to the congestion problem.
Quote4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
So what about poorer families who cant afford a new car?
1. Tough. Use a Bike / Moped / Public Transport. Or at least have restrictions on them.
Itll cut down on Accidents as well as they are the most likely to have them
2. Deliver earlier or later. Taking Freight of the roads during the busy periods would free up a good 20-25% of road space. Infact, the goverment should give them special incentives to drive from dusk to dawn.
3. Every little helps - Its estimated 1 in 10 cars are uninsured.
4. Erm... well how are they going to survive under road pricing? Think it through.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeQuote from: Eggtastico4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
My car is 17 years old and more than safe/fast enough for motorway travel. Strict enforcement of a minimum speed limit is what is required here, not a blanket ban on old cars.
I bet it shakes like a bastard when you hit 75mph? + all the dirty sh*t its pumping out with 17 years of wear & tear.
The MOT should be modernised. Instead of the It can go forward, it can go backwards. It Stops & it has lights, kind of MOT we have atm.
Things like ABS Breaks for example. There should be a Grace period of say 3 years where all New Cars MUST have ABS Breaks. Same for most other Driving/Safety Aid.
Besides that, If point 1 & 3 was done, there wouldnt be many point 4 cars left. Most uninsured cars are uninsured because of 1x Money or 2x It wont pass an MOT
Quote from: SaraClamping down on emissions is all well and good but still isnt going to help the congestion problem.
yes it would.
For a Start it would take every London Red Bus off the Road :P
That would solve the London problem overnight.
Quote from: Binary Shadowmaybe closeing our borders and kicking the illegals out might help
We shouldnt need road congestion as an excuse to do that :mrgreen:
QuoteI bet it shakes like a bastard when you hit 75mph? + all the dirty sh*t its pumping out with 17 years of wear & tear.
The MOT should be modernised. Instead of the It can go forward, it can go backwards. It Stops & it has lights, kind of MOT we have atm.
Hahaha that amuses me so much! Who cares if a car shakes, that kind of statement is bold. You usually find people who have a old car look after them better than people with newer ones. I think your going to get a bashing off near enough everyone for saying things like that.
Obviously your no petrolhead when it comes to the point that you wouldnt have a vintage etc.
Quote from: Poison_UKObviously your no petrolhead when it comes to the point that you wouldnt have a vintage etc.
I got a Volvo S60 Diesel. Why would I want a vintage, when I can kick back, put the heated seats on my leather interior & flick cruise control on?
Boring.
Quote1. Tough. Use a Bike / Moped / Public Transport. Or at least have restrictions on them.
Itll cut down on Accidents as well as they are the most likely to have them
2. Deliver earlier or later. Taking Freight of the roads during the busy periods would free up a good 20-25% of road space. Infact, the goverment should give them special incentives to drive from dusk to dawn.
3. Every little helps - Its estimated 1 in 10 cars are uninsured.
4. Erm... well how are they going to survive under road pricing? Think it through.
1)Public transport is overpriced and not very good, people on moped/bikes tend to have more accidents anyway. Its not tough its unfair. people who have less experience driving are more likely to have an accident. Its got nothing to do with age. Most new drivers are of a younger age which is why statistically they seem to have more accidents, its nothing to do with age its about level of experience and training.
2)Im sure major companies and services would be delieghted with this thought, "Im sorry we cant get your medicine to you, were not allowed to delivery at this time of day." Or how about large companies who need deliveries to create large amount of revenue for the government, I can really see Gordon Brown putting this one through, "oh well only loose X thousand a day because industry and commerce cant transport during key times."
3)I didnt disagree with you on that point, try reading what I have written.
4)What? Road pricing has nothing to do with banning older cars from going on the motorway. If people cant survive road pricing theyll do exactly what the people who cant afford insurance do, which is drive on the road anyway.
if we had subsidised public transport then it would work, untill then you can continue to pay Ã,£2 a pop for teh bus.
And the rest, if I used public transport to get me to work it would take 2 1/2 hours and cost Ã,£2.75 (return) for the first bus, Ã,£5 for the train (return) and Ã,£1 for the second bus (return) so in total Ã,£8.75 a day Whereas car: road tax per day Ã,£0.46, fuel Ã,£2.12, insurance per day roughly Ã,£1.91 so in total Ã,£4.49 by car and it takes me half an hour at a time of my convienience.
Quote from: EggtasticoIts a Scam.
4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
Thats what MOTs are for.
Quote from: sdp(Blair) One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad.
Pretty much. :lol:
Quote from: Chuck NorrisQuote1. Tough. Use a Bike / Moped / Public Transport. Or at least have restrictions on them.
Itll cut down on Accidents as well as they are the most likely to have them
2. Deliver earlier or later. Taking Freight of the roads during the busy periods would free up a good 20-25% of road space. Infact, the goverment should give them special incentives to drive from dusk to dawn.
3. Every little helps - Its estimated 1 in 10 cars are uninsured.
4. Erm... well how are they going to survive under road pricing? Think it through.
1)Public transport is overpriced and not very good, people on moped/bikes tend to have more accidents anyway. Its not tough its unfair. people who have less experience driving are more likely to have an accident. Its got nothing to do with age.
I stopped reading right there, as thats downright untrue. Younger drivers, especially those under 20 are by far the largest risk takers. Insurance rates reflect this. Experience counts, but age is a big factor. In the US you can drive at 16, and at 14 with a hardship license--but the insurance rates at that age are often astronomical.
As far as congestion goes--a national car pooling database could be a solution. Regressive taxation just means those with the means will drive. The "tax" that will solve this is the tax of inconvenience. Many ways to implement it. :mrgreen:
Quote from: EggtasticoQuote from: Clockd 0NeQuote from: Eggtastico4. Only allow Vehicles upto a certain age on the motorways - which can tie n with their green issue policies.
My car is 17 years old and more than safe/fast enough for motorway travel. Strict enforcement of a minimum speed limit is what is required here, not a blanket ban on old cars.
I bet it shakes like a bastard when you hit 75mph? + all the dirty sh*t its pumping out with 17 years of wear & tear.
The MOT should be modernised. Instead of the It can go forward, it can go backwards. It Stops & it has lights, kind of MOT we have atm.
Things like ABS Breaks for example. There should be a Grace period of say 3 years where all New Cars MUST have ABS Breaks. Same for most other Driving/Safety Aid.
Besides that, If point 1 & 3 was done, there wouldnt be many point 4 cars left. Most uninsured cars are uninsured because of 1x Money or 2x It wont pass an MOT
Doesnt shake at 110mph, let alone 70mph.
Also runs fine having only done 60k and pumps out no sh*t (just passed the MOT). The brakes are also sharp as f00k and if I wanted to I could slap on bigger discs, Im not taking it to the track though. Altogether, that kinda puts your argument to rest.
QuoteI stopped reading right there, as thats downright untrue. Younger drivers, especially those under 20 are by far the largest risk takers. Insurance rates reflect this. Experience counts, but age is a big factor. In the US you can drive at 16, and at 14 with a hardship license--but the insurance rates at that age are often astronomical.
You should read all of it then you might understand what im trying to say. :D
People who are younger have more accidents because theyre the ones more likely to be new to driving. and people shouldnt stereotype just because of their age.
too right thats BS about old cars, my 12 year old calibra is well under the emissions on the MOT and is smooth up to 120+
21, 3 years NCB. But yeah I admit that a lot of young drivers it is there fault.
I totally believe in making non-tax/non-insurance/non-mot cars should be monitored more tho.
nothing to do with congestion, nothing to do with being green, nothing to do with saftey. its all about Ã,£Ã,£Ã,£Ã,£
basically nearly 2millions people object to this scheme, Blair may aswell have just emailed tough sh*t, im doing it anyway
good old democracy.
Quote from: DEViANCEnothing to do with congestion, nothing to do with being green, nothing to do with saftey. its all about Ã,£Ã,£Ã,£Ã,£
We get taxed enough on luxurys as it is. Its hit the point now where they will find a hell of a lot of people will go for the down fall of labour. Im thinking its time they f**ked off to be honest..
Petrol is to expensive, tax is gonna be to expensive in this country.
Remember when the Petrol Crises kicked off.. This is gonna get a lot worse...
Quote from: Eggtastico1. Tough. Use a Bike / Moped / Public Transport. Or at least have restrictions on them.
Itll cut down on Accidents as well as they are the most likely to have them
2. Deliver earlier or later. Taking Freight of the roads during the busy periods would free up a good 20-25% of road space. Infact, the goverment should give them special incentives to drive from dusk to dawn.
3. Every little helps - Its estimated 1 in 10 cars are uninsured.
4. Erm... well how are they going to survive under road pricing? Think it through.
1. sounds good but not always practical, I have waited for over 40 minutes for a bus on occasions in Newcastle, for many thats just too long.
Putting restrictions on, unless you are going to enforce them, is worthless. Of course you could fit a speed limiter set to 72mph on all vehicles... /waits for uproar
2. Again not always practical to do this.
3. So what do you want to do about it? automatically crush someones car if they arent insured? Or just take it in and expect them to pay severe penalties for the return of it?
4. the government shouldnt have road pricing, they should increase the price of fuel and remove road tax.
Quote from: Serious1. sounds good but not always practical, I have waited for over 40 minutes for a bus on occasions in Newcastle, for many thats just too long.
Putting restrictions on, unless you are going to enforce them, is worthless. Of course you could fit a speed limiter set to 72mph on all vehicles... /waits for uproar
2. Again not always practical to do this.
3. So what do you want to do about it? automatically crush someones car if they arent insured? Or just take it in and expect them to pay severe penalties for the return of it?
4. the government shouldnt have road pricing, they should increase the price of fuel and remove road tax.
The Lack of public transport is crippling. Like I said earlier, they wont fix it until AFTER the Tax comes in as it will keep the roads looking busy.
2. If incentives was given, Im sure businesses would look at ok. Ok a lot of places arent capable of their warehouses being open at stupid o clock, but If the incentive was there, then im sure it should be considered.. afterall, a Truck takes up about 3 times the space of a car.
3. Errr, Yes. That is supposed to be the Law regarding TAX. Just extend it to having an Insurance Disc & MOT Disc. Any that are out of date by X period off time, then your pulled over & your car is taken to be crushed at YOUR expense. It would also bring all our insurance premiums down.
4. You cant have a sliding scale on Fuel though cant you?
Its city Centres that are most congested, so why should Countryside drivers & small town/villages be forced to subsidise the heavily congested areas?
Id have nothing against Road pricing as long as every other avenue was explored & somthing actually done about it before hitting us in the pocket.
Fuel Duty & Road Tax would also have to be abolished.
Quote from: Eggtastico4. You cant have a sliding scale on Fuel though cant you?
Its city Centres that are most congested, so why should Countryside drivers & small town/villages be forced to subsidise the heavily congested areas?
Id have nothing against Road pricing as long as every other avenue was explored & somthing actually done about it before hitting us in the pocket.
Fuel Duty & Road Tax would also have to be abolished.
why should people have to pay just to go through a congested area? In many cases car drivers will have to pay despite the fact its not congested at all.
Congestion charging is expensive and some people cheat. No matter what way you look at it you are pricing some people out of the market.
Quote from: Seriouswhy should people have to pay just to go through a congested area? In many cases car drivers will have to pay despite the fact its not congested at all.
Congestion charging is expensive and some people cheat. No matter what way you look at it you are pricing some people out of the market.
Congestion is the excuse they are giving, Yet they are trying nothing else to try & fix the problem, except to hit the people in the pockets who cause congestion.
Theres plenty of things they can try to ease congestion, but they are not.
its funny really, do they really think people would sit in queues of traffic if they didnt really have to?
They do.
They could get trains, they could get buses, they could in fact ride bicycles.
A huge majority of journeys are under 10 miles. 10 miles is incredibly easy to cycle. Carry a suit in your pannier, sorted.
My job Ive just been offered they actually prefer people to travel via Rail to clients establishments... Means you turn up looking fresher and have plenty of time (on an intercity style train anyway) to read notes, and prepare for a meeting.
The majority of people only sit in queues and queues of traffic because they are lazy and selfish.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adA huge majority of journeys are under 10 miles. 10 miles is incredibly easy to cycle. Carry a suit in your pannier, sorted.
Thats hardly practical, rain and wet roads would be horrific and i can see my tools and laptop computer riding with me :roll:
Id work from home given the choice, extra half hr in bed
Id agree with tolls on motorways and charging people to go into inner city areas but I dont agree with car tracking - tis overly expensive and pointless.
Central areas of say London, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield etc.. tend to have OK public transport.
Perhaps they could do with a few more park & ride type car parks on the outskirts for people who genuinely cant do without a car to get to work.
Quote from: SeriousCongestion charging is expensive and some people cheat. No matter what way you look at it you are pricing some people out of the market.
well that is kind of the whole point
if everyone could afford to carry on driving into central London and pay the 8 quid a day or whatever it is then the whole congestion charging idea wouldnt work in the first place.
The point of congestion charging is to make driving into congested areas expensive so less people do it. It has worked well in the city & theyve even reclaimed some roads as a result (areas around monument is going to be pedestrianized now due to less traffic)
Quote from: M3ta7h3adThe majority of people only sit in queues and queues of traffic because they are lazy and selfish.
Balls. Most of the time the travel cost is cheaper and a vast time saver via car, especially on less popular routes.
Ive yet to have a train journey that hasnt been physically and financially draining. The cost of filling the tank on my Mazda might just about swing it for some very long journeys down south, but I doubt it.
Sheffield to Ormskirk via train takes me 5 hours. Ormskirk via car takes under 2. Thats a pisstake.
IMO trains are only effective on frequently operating, fast short travel routes. And services such as the London Underground.
The only way they can make public transport more attractive than driving outside of the big cities is to impose 20mph limits on motorways, poke holes in everybodies radiators and then get tramps to piss on everybodies passenger seats.
Quote from: Binary ShadowQuote from: M3ta7h3adA huge majority of journeys are under 10 miles. 10 miles is incredibly easy to cycle. Carry a suit in your pannier, sorted.
Thats hardly practical, rain and wet roads would be horrific and i can see my tools and laptop computer riding with me :roll:
Its certainly practical. I carry a laptop and several heavy books in my pannier. Rain and wet roads is actually nice, you sweat less, and you have mudguards to protect you from the road crud.
You turn up at work, go into the toilet, dry off with the towel you packed, wash, change into your suit or work clothes, sorted. I will certainly be considering that when I get a full time job.
QuoteId work from home given the choice, extra half hr in bed
See... you just reiterated my point, there are shedloads of options out there ahead of a car, yet people are lazy.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeQuote from: M3ta7h3adThe majority of people only sit in queues and queues of traffic because they are lazy and selfish.
Balls. Most of the time the travel cost is cheaper and a vast time saver via car, especially on less popular routes.
Ive yet to have a train journey that hasnt been physically and financially draining. The cost of filling the tank on my Mazda might just about swing it for some very long journeys down south, but I doubt it.
Sheffield to Ormskirk via train takes me 5 hours. Ormskirk via car takes under 2. Thats a pisstake.
IMO trains are only effective on frequently operating, fast short travel routes. And services such as the London Underground.
Cardiff to London is cheaper via rail. Cardiff to sheffield :) is also cheaper via rail! :D Hey im an avid fan of trains, I know how bloody frustrating they can be, but you can hardly say the "quiet zone" cab of a a virgin intercity train is stressful.
I find the shorter commuter type services are the worst. Getting just 5 miles on a train is a ballache for 20 minutes, getting across the country is a piece of piss :) Which is why I recommend the cycling option :)
i can see it being lazier to spend an hr in traffic rather than spending extra in bed and working from home :shock:
i think youll find that generally the option isnt there, here theres no working from home, im not on a bus route and the train station is miles away.
Itd take twice or 3 times longer to get to work on a bike and id spend the 1st hr there recovering from the experience!
Quote from: M3ta7h3adCardiff to London is cheaper via rail. Cardiff to sheffield :) is also cheaper via rail! :D Hey im an avid fan of trains, I know how bloody frustrating they can be, but you can hardly say the "quiet zone" cab of a a virgin intercity train is stressful.
I find the shorter commuter type services are the worst. Getting just 5 miles on a train is a ballache for 20 minutes, getting across the country is a piece of piss :) Which is why I recommend the cycling option :)
Well done, youve plucked out exactly the type of major route exception I was talking about. Obviously the road network between the two is far more laborious. London is always a sensible option for the train, only because it is such a nightmare drive. Cheaper though? Debatable. Unless you book well in advance ticket prices are often Ã,£70+ for long journeys I seem to see. I always check to see whats cheaper for me: Sheffield to London, Sheffield to Cardiff, Cardiff to Liverpool, etc and most times its extortionate.
Trains are just an all round ballache, and at busy times on the major routes you can get royally screwed on the supposed comfort. Youve obviously had a lucky experience. After my last trip to Lpool on the train I vowed never to use that sh*te again in that direction. Its pathetic up north.
yes prices, they are rather high, but when you then get to that place you dont have to pay congestion charges, parking fees or anything extra. :)
5 people from work wanted to go to Kent for the day, it cost over Ã,£250 on the train but it only cost Ã,£50 to rent a car for the day.
yeah, but how much in petrol and parking fees and congestion charge?
Also 3 people in a car is carpooling, thats also a green thing :) Its good to share transport.
No one pays that much for parking except in the centre of London. It might add a tenner to your costs, max.
I did long distance train journeys every week for about 6 months last year and it was a nightmare.
Waterloo at rush hour is stressful.
The Portsmouth - London train is stressful.
Ã,£100 tickets are stressful.
Having a 5min margin of error thx to delays on a 250mile journey and worrying about getting stuck for the night is stressful.
Having to wait 3hrs for a train is stressful.
The tube getting bunged up is stressful.
Trying to find details for bus links at the other end is stressful, having to pay Ã,£10-50 for a taxi when the bus doesnt show up...
Yeah its a nice way of getting around when you dont have a deadline to meet and everything runs properly, ...
Metalhead... your talking crap.
Its cheaper for me to go to London by Car than Train. Its also usually quicker unless I only wanted to go to paddington. I also get a seat & not have to stand squashed up for more than 1/2 the journey.
Theres not enough frequent Transport. To get a Train, means I would have to get to the train station. 1 bus an hour & a journey that would take at least twice as long that it would by car.
Funnily Enough, I had to go to Cardiff Today. Took me less than an Hour to get there. I was in, Job done & out over 1/2 hour before I would have been If I had to rely on public transport. As for your bike riding suggestion, I think youve fallen off & bumped your head.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeNo one pays that much for parking except in the centre of London. It might add a tenner to your costs, max.
Youve never parked in Central London Have You?
you be luck to get 2 hours for a tenner
Quote from: M3ta7h3adyeah, but how much in petrol and parking fees and congestion charge?
Also 3 people in a car is carpooling, thats also a green thing :) Its good to share transport.
& Ã,£5 a trip on the tube
Quote from: EggtasticoQuote from: Clockd 0NeNo one pays that much for parking except in the centre of London. It might add a tenner to your costs, max.
Youve never parked in Central London Have You?
you be luck to get 2 hours for a tenner
You misread, my point was you would only pay more than a tenner in London. Anywhere else is usually a quid or so for a few hours.
I left my car for 6 hours in a Reading car park and that was the most Ive ever paid, Ã,£12 (50p every half hour!)
At least the tube you can get a daypass for, and that can work out reasonable.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeYou misread, my point was you would only pay more than a tenner in London. Anywhere else is usually a quid or so for a few hours.
I left my car for 6 hours in a Reading car park and that was the most Ive ever paid, Ã,£12 (50p every half hour!)
At least the tube you can get a daypass for, and that can work out reasonable.
A Quid for a few hours? do you travel 17years back in time everytime you drive your 17yr old car? Or you havent spent much time down south/south west?
my mate had Ã,£30 of parking charges last week.
and now a Ã,£60 ticket lol!!!
Lets just face simle facts.
Personal Vehicles are both cheaper and more conveniant 9/10 situations. Which is quite simply why there is congestion and people half happy to be in congestion, which still turns out to be quicker! I couldnt work without a car atm.
Goverment strategy is quite simply to make car travel more expensive, especially for those travelling on their own.
There is no looking past the black and white on the simplistics of that. Rather than giving us an alternative, a solution is behind forced down us.
Quote from: EggtasticoQuote from: M3ta7h3adyeah, but how much in petrol and parking fees and congestion charge?
Also 3 people in a car is carpooling, thats also a green thing :) Its good to share transport.
& Ã,£5 a trip on the tube
Er... Ã,£8.50 gets me a travel card for the entirity of the Tube, and its valid all day.
When I go to london, my mate parks up at slough train station, we pay Ã,£8.50, get train into kings cross, and tube it around london freely.
Not stressful at all.
Parking in Cardiff is around the Ã,£3.50 an hour mark unless your lucky enough to get voucher spaces in which case you can park for 6 hours at like 50p.
Riding a bike for short journeys is incredibly favourable, you only need to see the centre of london to see how popular it is. People riding bikes to and from work in suits, or carrying panniers with their clothes in.
Long distance Id still prefer a train any day. Having been a passenger in a car from cardiff to Hammersmith in london for 4 hours (5am - 9am), Id have really preferred to have just jumped on the direct one for 2 hours and been there 2 hours ahead of schedule, get some breakfast, and head in nice and fresh headed.
This is why i dont take the train (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1253067,00.html)
Yet you drive, its almost as if you really want to become a statistic.
Quote from: Binary ShadowThis is why i dont take the train
Yep, thats logical :roll:
QuoteCompared with road travel, railways remain relatively safe. Annual death rates on roads are over 40,000 in the United States and about 3000 in the United Kingdom, compared with 1,000 rail-related fatalities in the United States and under 20 in the UK. (Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation and U.K. Health & Safety Executive). (These figures do not account for differences in passenger-miles travelled by mode; see e.g. Transportation safety in the United States.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway
doesnt matter that the death rate is low, every one of the people on that train will suffer for a long time for it and they had no control over the situation, in my car i can make decisions and avoid things and have some control over life or death, and i wont be doing 95mph and ill be able to stop hella quicker than a train.
The idea of sitting in a metal box on wheels sat on a rail being pushed along at near 100mph with no way of stopping or avoiding accidents and relying on the rails and maintenance to keep it all together makes me feel sick tbh, only been on a train once in the last 10 years and hated every second of my 200+ mile trip.. safe is something i dont feel.
There isnt an issue if you personally dont enjoy train travel - but thats no basis to argue that it isnt safe.
Quote from: BigSoyThere isnt an issue if you personally dont enjoy train travel - but thats no basis to argue that it isnt safe.
didnt say it wasnt safe, just said its why i wont personally take the train
Aye, but your forgetting your metal box does 110mph if you want it to, typically does 70mph, or a little over ;) at times.
And your relying on not just your maintenance, but the maintenance of every car around you, and the common sense as well as the observation of everyone around you.
A train, does 125mph... but its an isolated metal box with nothing else around it, the only thing that causes accidents are either human error (just as serious on a motorway), or a sudden obstruction of the line (again, just as serious on the motorway). You dont get driving miss daisy pulling out on you at 70mph and slamming the brakes on because she dropped her phone and took her eyes off of the road.
Im just not seeing why your nervous about train travel, yet like driving a car. You more than any other person I know has the worse luck with cars, surely you understand the ease at which a cock up can quickly turn deadly?
yes you can easily be in the wrong place at the wrong time i guess and get killed, but then it could be a low speed shunt or you may avoid being hit altogether.
I guess its about control, i hate being a passenger in anything, cars, buses, trains..
Quote from: M3ta7h3adAye, but your forgetting your metal box does 110mph if you want it to, typically does 70mph, or a little over ;) at times.
forget that, the speed doesnt matter. I live in Preston, right on the West Coast line. I can get to Windermere in under an hour (when visiting my grandmother) by car. It normally takes just under 2 by train. The National express bus takes only a little longer than the train. If i need to go to carlisle to visit other relatives I get in the car and drive, the train takes longer (Proven twice when I picked up my sister from the station for a giggle). Manchester is quicker by train, but Liverpool is quicker by car. Forget Blackburn as well, its all of 12 miles away and i had to catch the train a while back to get there (RAC dumped the car in the wrong place). just over 45 minutes to get there, took me 30 to get back.
Why always use a form of transport that doesnt always suit? I do use the train for some things, but a lot of the time a car is simply quicker, and i want to have the optionto choose, not have some politician in his rather expensive, gas guzzling limo telling me that im not good enough to use the roads when he might be on them.